Date:20010130
Docket: T-2276-00
T-2358-00
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and JANICE COCHRANE
Applicants
- and -
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] The Information Commissioner of Canada (the "Respondent") has filed a Notice of Motion seeking the following relief:
| (1) an order, pursuant to Rules 3, 8 and 47(2) allowing the Information Commissioner an extension of time to file his Notice of Appearance in T-2276-00; |
| (2) an order, pursuant to Rules 3, 8, 53, 54, 55, and 302 allowing the applications for judicial review in files T-2276-00 and T-2358-00 to be consolidated into one file so that the applications follow one procedural time table; any new evidence adduced by the parties be filed in one file; the evidence already adduced in each of the respective files be merged into one file, there be one set of cross-examinations and one hearing. |
| (3) an order pursuant to Rules 386 and 389 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) appointing a case management judge to specially manage the proceedings, to hold a dispute resolution conference in accordance with Rules 387 to 389 which may narrow the issues on the applications for review to determine whether: |
| (a) there is any issue concerning the Information Commissioner's power to conduct investigations of complaints with respect to actual refusals to disclose records requested under the Access to Information Act or parts thereof, and referred to in CIC department files listed in Annex A of the Deputy Information Commissioner's Orders of November 22, 2000 and December 11, 2000; |
| (b) there is any issue concerning the Information Commissioner's power to conduct investigations of complaints with respect to deemed refusals where the head of the government institution failed to give access to requested records referred to in CIC department files listed in Part 1 of Annex A to the Orders of November 22, 2000 and December 11, 2000, within the extended time limit pursuant to a section 9 notice of extension of time; |
| (c) there is any issue concerning the Information Commissioner's power to conduct investigations of complaints with respect to other files referred in in Part 2 of Annex A of the Orders of November 22, 2000 and December 11, 2000, where a three year extension of time was taken by CIC. |
| (4) an order, in light of the foregoing, allowing the Information Commissioner to file his affidavit evidence in the consolidated file, within 10 days of the issuance of an order pursuant to Rule 389 resolving the above-noted issues. |
[2] The Applicants consent to everything except the appointment of a case management judge. The Respondent seeks the appointment of a case management judge so that these applications can be referred for a dispute resolution conference in order to define and narrow the issues.
[3] Rule 383 provides for the appointment of a case management judge. Rules 386 and 387 provide for the conduct of a dispute resolution conference. One of the matters which the judge conducting such conference can address is the narrowing of issues.
[4] Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada and Janice Cochrane resist the appointment of a case management judge on the grounds that it is unnecessary.
[5] I agree with the submissions made in that regard. The applications for judicial review were only commenced in December. They have barely come to life. The appointment of a case management judge is not subject to hard and fast rules. However, in my opinion, the allocation of judicial resources for management of these applications at this early stage is unwarranted. Counsel for the Applicants has clearly stated that the sole issue in these applications for judicial review is the power of the Respondent Information Commissioner to issue subpoenae in relation to the files referred to in Part II of Annex A of the Orders of this Court made on November 22, 2000 and December 11, 2000.
[6] I agree with counsel for the Applicants that there is neither confusion nor a need to narrow the issues, because the issue is clearly stated. This does not foreclose the possibility that a case management judge may be appointed in the future, but at the moment, such a step appears premature and unnecessary, and that part of the motion is denied.
[7] Following the hearing of the Motion, Counsel for the parties attempted to reach consensus on an Order. I have read the correspondence exchanged between Counsel, that is the letters dated January 25, January 26 and January 29. No consensus has been reached and an Order will be made by the Court. Since the issue of the extent of the confidentiality order is otherwise before the Court, I will not deal with it.
[8] For these reasons the following Order is made:
| (1) the Respondent shall have an extension of time to allow the filing of an Appearance forthwith; |
| (2) the conduct of the proceedings in file T-2276-00 and T-2358-00 is consolidated, so that the time limits prescribed by the Federal Court Rules, 1998 will apply concurrently to the conduct of these two applications so that the application will follow one procedural time table; any new evidence to be filed will be filed in one file, the evidence already adduced in each file will be merged into one file; there will be one set of cross-examinations and one hearing; |
| (3) the Respondent is granted leave to file his evidence, if any, no later than ten days from the date of this Order. |
[9] Although the Applicants sought costs on this hearing of this motion pursuant to their written submissions, the issue of costs was not argued. Accordingly, there will be no order as to costs.
[10] These reasons will be filed in T-2276-00 and placed on T-2356-00 and have the same force and effect as if it were filed.
E. Heneghan
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
January 30, 2001
Email this Content